2011/4/11 Mark S. Miller <[email protected]>: > We would like a notion of correctness that allows us to reason in a modular > manner: A correct composition of individually correct components should > yield a correct composite, where the correctness of the composition depends > only on the contracts of the components to be composed -- not on their > implementation. The Java composite above is incorrect because the key is > incorrect. This does not contradict the notion that the hashtable > abstraction by itself is correct even though in this case it behaves > incorrectly. > The problem here is specifically with the methods on Object.prototype vs the > pervasive use of objects as string->value maps in JavaScript. What are we to > do about > getDefiningObject(JSON.parse(str), 'foo') > ? Even without mutual suspicion within the program code, we would like to > reason about the correctness of this as quantified over all strings, for > example, even if the string is received from an external untrusted or > unreliable source.
Would you agree with the following?: Given that stackoverflow.com and user-commenting documentation sites ( http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.pcre.php ) encourage teaching by sharing copy/pasteable snippets of source code, we would like experienced devs to be able to compose succinct snippets that can be shared without an accompanying page of caveats that few will read or know how to check. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
